David T Breaker

I was never going to enjoy the Olympics, being as it is a taxpayer funded circus; I am the original Olympic grinch, boring fellow Sixth Formers back in 2005 about the cost, the growing deficit, and of course taxes. Yet what I wasn't expecting was an Opening Ceremony that I still remember in utter disbelief, a social worker's history of Britain, one thousand years of history dumbed down into a leftist narrative - peasant ruritania swept away by top hatted industrialists and their satanic mills before being vanquished by pop music - with at the centre a paganistic fire ceremony, the Fire God's name ablaze across the ground: NHS. It was bizarre, wasn't it?

Of course, as befits a "national religion" that in those moments assumed national idol status, any criticism is deemed heretical. To comment that the NHS worship was inappropriate, that such a feature was left-wing and quasi-Soviet in character, to dare suggest that the NHS isn't the "envy of the world", is to invite and incite the angry mob, pitchforks and flaming Olympic torches in hand. To have anything but undying love for the NHS, anything but unqualified praise and admiration, is to be "unpatriotic" and "insulting to the NHS staff".

Now you could put this reaction down to the leftwards leanings of Twitter users, from whom I received that feedback, yet the disease of delusion seems to be nationwide and epidemic in scale. Earlier this year the Commonwealth Fund researched the healthcare systems of developed nations to create an empirical structure for international comparison, which is the sort of research we should pay attention to but don't, and the results were overwhelming; on every subjective measure, across the board, Britain's NHS annihilated the competition. Us Brits were the most satisfied, the most confident, the most whole heartedly content with our healthcare, anywhere in the world, bar none; indeed if the NHS were any more popular we'd be trying to marry it, at severe risk of teenage girls standing in screaming mobs outside A&E, and having chart music songs about it. Even the Prime Minister, a late convert to Twitter, recently tweeted #welovethenhs, and the next Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby tweeted "NHS, annual Christmas present to the UK. #thanks4NHS."

November 1947. The nation under the socialist tyranny of the first majority Labour government. Churchill watching powerlessly from the opposition benches, must have felt a bleak moment in time. Yes, the Allies had won the war, but Attlee had won the peace - or rather the right to shape the post-war settlement - and across the nation the old England that had survived the Blitz was being dissolved.

Gone was the Great Western, in was nationalised British Railways; out was the Empire and free trade, in was abandonment and protectionism; out were free markets, in was the state takeover of coal, steel, energy, road haulage, healthcare and any other industry that tempted the socialists. The economy in turmoil, a bad winter, rationing tightened and the joy of VE Day a distant faded memory: it must have felt, for all but a few, that the country ruined by the war was now in pursuit of its own final destruction, demolishing itself as rapidly as its planners demolished its historic town centres. When Churchill commented on the eleventh of that month in the Commons that "the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter" many must have disagreed. The best argument against democracy was, surely, the insanity being undertaken in every corner of the land.

It's no secret that I'm not a fan of Britain's gun laws, which are among the toughest anywhere in the world, so tough even that our Olympic and Paralympic teams are forced to train in that well- known wild west destination of Switzerland - where 17% of adults are gun owners, and crime rates are low - which makes me a somewhat biased observer of the Danny Nightingale case that has angered the nation during this past few weeks

My attitude to gun control, which I touched on when writing about household defence, is best described as American, or more accurately Texan. So the imprisonment of an Englishman - let alone a special forces war hero, and leaving aside the mitigating circumstances - for the simple possession of a firearm, in his own home, and without criminal intent, leads me to a great sadness.

There was a time - when our nation was home to men such as Lords Acton, Macaulay and others - that the liberties of England, and the trust bestowed on the populace compared to the oppressive continent, was a source of pride and identity. "There is a perpetual interference with personal liberty over there that would not be tolerated in England for a week," Margot Asquith wrote, referring to America - a statement that you could not make today, when our country considers press regulation and price controls, prosecutes people for speech crimes, and has the most stringent gun controls in the western world. How things have changed.

Yet setting to one side my thoughts on gun control, the case of Sgt Nightingale raises serious questions that need answering. Now in no way of course am I suggesting that members of the military are above the law - such an idea is preposterous - but, as has been made clear in the Commons and in the press, the way in which this case has been dealt with leaves much to be desired.

History is a strange thing, warped as it is by the curve of time, leanings of its writers, passing of the eras. An individual in history, or a movement, can see opinion wax and wane long after the event, viewed through a prism unimaginable at the time. Some see their reputation rise and fall, others fall then rise, the standings of every person in history at the eternal whim of revisionist trends, with a rare few weathering it all to remain as they were, for good or ill. Winston Churchill was a hero, then a war manger unceremoniously ejected from office, only to be nationally mourned at his passing and later voted the Greatest Briton; Margaret Thatcher was a popular Prime Minister, elected three times with vast majorities, her reputation pummeled subsequently by the left, but with a successful biopic movie now solidly rebounding to iconic status; Jimmy Carter was viewed as a disaster, and still is, just as Reagan was viewed as a triumph and continues to grow in stature. Not only is the past a foreign country where they do things differently, to paraphrase L.P.Hartley, they often viewed things differently also.

With just a short time until the US election, the polls pointing to a tight race, and momentum behind the challenger Mitt Romney, it may not be long before the historians are unleashed upon the current resident of the White House, Barack H Obama, elected as he was in 2008 upon a wave of expectation. That expectation was of course never going to be met, Obama's campaign being deliberately vague and allowing every individual to project their own hopes, beliefs and ideas upon the blank canvas - rallies and his website even having an ideas wall, for supporters to write their ideas, often at odds with other ideas on the same wall - allowing the candidate to unite a bizarre coalition to win under the banner of "hope and change", a collection of voters that could never all be satisfied at once. Personally I never understood it - "Change is not a destination, just as hope is not a strategy," as my preferred candidate Mayor Giuliani wisely put it - but it obviously worked: people Left and Right, socialist, liberal, conservative and libertarian, united behind Obama - particularly in Britain - a man who I had wrote off as inexperienced, preachy in tone and stunningly narcissistic. This was after all the man who described defeating Hilary Clinton in the Democratic Party primary as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal", a line that I still cannot watch without laughing, suggesting as it does Messianic powers.

Of course though I solidly opposed Obama that didn't mean I did not wish him well once the results were in, the contest over, as the wave of optimism and hope - though greatly overhyped - did offer opportunities, a potential to recast America's standing with the world and usher in a new era of post-racialism, healing not the earth but the scars of segregation and slavery. So too did I, indeed everyone, wish Obama well for more selfish reasons, the success of the global economy, the security of the free world, the advancement of trade, industry and prosperity, all intrinsically tied to the success of the United States. If goodwill and hope were gold and silver then there'd be no national debt.

Runnymede in Surrey isn't far from where I live but there's little to see, a patch of meadowland just off the M25 dotted with a few modest monuments. The vast majority of the site is simple English countryside - beautiful and scientifically of interest, but that's not untypical of this corner of the country - and without explanation, as with many a historic site, quite easily passable, forgettable, indifferent to any other field or meadow almost anywhere. It could be the site of a battle or meeting, discovery or treaty, or maybe nothing at all; it could be a Flanders' Field, or Bosworth Field, or just any old field.

But then that's the beauty of history: it's there, but only because we were ourselves told it was there, the narrative story passed down generation to generation, with the implicit expectation - duty even - that we repeat that process, handing on that knowledge and legacy. That to me is the difference between history and archeology, that one is a living story passed on and the other merely randomly discovered curiosities to decipher but never fully comprehend, though I doubt that's the official distinction. If we don't pass on history it vanishes into archeology, that field becomes just a field, that past just a few remnant curios to perhaps perplex a future generation as to their meaning and story, just as we ponder Stonehenge or Mayan ruins, or maybe to become nothing at all.

When a burglar enters a property, a "home invasion" to borrow the rather apt American terminology, the intruder does far more than simply cross a threshold uninvited. The victim, excluding any financial and sentimental losses incurred, is often left with a heavy psychological weight, the sense of safety and security we develop from our homes forever shattered; some can simply place the event behind them, but others are left with a trauma they seek to resolve with extreme security measures, high tech surveillance equipment, or even moving home. For the resident, a home that's been broken into is rarely the same.

Yet for the resident that is both present and awake during a home invasion there lies a risk that life very literally will never be the same: are the intruders violent, as in the case of an elderly grandmother who was water-boarded or an elderly couple tortured with a hot iron, are they sexually violent or of murderous intent, and what response does the householder undertake? Does the householder defend themselves, their family and their home, thereby risking their judgement being second guessed as not "reasonable", or simply hide away and hope for the best? For some, the elderly being disproportionately victims of home invasion, physical reality makes that choice for them, being left with no viable alternative but appeasement. And if the homeowner does decide to take action, what action can he or she take? We are all, to one degree or another, at a disadvantage, intruders often being in groups of two or more, overwhelmingly young males, predominantly of above average fitness, and often equipped with crowbars and other weaponry; what match is the average householder, half asleep in their pyjama outfits, armed only with whatever is to hand in their bedrooms? Are we expected to defend ourselves with slippers and socks?

Even a broken clock is right twice a day - once if digital - and it may be that time, just that rare occasion, fleeting as it is, for the Liberal Democrats. I know, I know, such a statement is truly shocking, particularly coming from me, but I try to be fair - I even credited Peter Mandelson as being right just once here at ConservativeHome - and it seems as if, just possibly, it's the turn of our orange-tinged frenemies (friends + enemies) to bask in the glow that is my endorsement. Poor them!

Of course we have yet to see details, so I retain the right to retract my backing, but the recent noises from the Lib Dems - abolishing Inheritance Tax in return for new Council Tax bands - deserves an enthusiastic acknowledgement. With caveats, such as questions over the number and weighting of the bands, the fact that Inheritance Tax is back on the chopping block is in itself great news.

Don't get me wrong, I find the idea that the elderly are forced to sell their homes sad, tragic - even, a great shame, and rather insulting as those that have contributed nothing or wasted their assets receive the same care free of charge. There's a certain moral hazard in this situation: don't save, enjoy your money, and you'll still get the same care as your hard working, heavy saving neighbour. It's no wonder Saga is as successful as it is!

So I'm not one of the inter-generational warriors: the fact that of the nation's total wealth 52% belongs to those aged between 45 and 65 - the baby boomers - doesn't surprise me, let alone annoy me, given that this age group has had three decades or more of adult life in which to save, invest, and pay down mortgages. Quite frankly, there'd be a problem if this age group didn't have such an asset base - either that or the younger Generation X and Y were prodigious over-achievers that skewed the ratios! I have little time for the bizarre Intergenerational Foundation, which seems intent on nothing short of civil war, and question stances and arguments of David Willetts's The Pinch as well.

The death of a young cyclist in London, the tenth such fatality this year, is saddening news enough. The fact that it occurred at the wheels of an official Olympic shuttle bus, at a junction close to the Aquatics Centre described by cyclists as confusing and poorly signed, just adds to the tragedy - particularly for those of us that oppose the Games - as the sense of this being an avoidable and unnecessary death increases. Yet despite there being many ways to increase road safety for cyclists, something that is very drastically needed, conversation has - as is customary in Britain - shifted immediately and illiberally to criminalising cyclists that choose not to wear a helmet, a move rather bizarre as it is yet unclear whether the victim was or wasn't wearing such headgear. Olympic cyclist Bradley Wiggins suggested that laws should be changed, David Cameron, described it as a "difficult issue" and added - sitting awkwardly on the fence - that "There is a strong case for making them compulsory...there are some who take a different view. We should have a good look at this."

Such laws are of course well-intentioned. No sane person wants cyclists to be endangering their lives, and if someone in my family travelled by bike then I'd certainly want them to wear a helmet - estimated to reduce fatalities by 15 percent - though if I'm honest, and could ride a bike, and wanted to ride a bike, then I'd probably not. Yet once again we are at that situation where we must ask not just whether something is a good idea - wearing a helmet is a good idea in my opinion - but whether there are unintended consequences, and whether there is a genuine public interest at stake.

In terms of consequences, mandating cycling helmets in Australia has reduced cycling fatalities, but that's hardly surprising as cycling among Australians roughly halved as a result. Other research even calls into question whether helmets increase safety: as with other safety features our behaviour and that of others changes, making individuals less cautious, with motorists driving nearly 3 inches closer to helmet wearing cyclists than those without headgear. That's even before other actions that cannot be measured, such as general cautiousness, and factors such as speed, are fully considered. And as cycling charities have noted, reformers often demand legislation but then consider the problem fixed - believing in the magic absolute power of laws - focusing their attention elsewhere, never asking whether the law was the solution to the issue or just a distraction.

Sometimes I feel as if I'm visiting this country from a distant land, that I'm accustomed to different norms and that therefore every so often I'm hugely out of sync with the mass mood and attitudes of Britain (consuming a lot of US media may have started this). At the very least I feel as if I've got certain attitudes that are dated, which may be the case - I always spent an above average amount of time with adults as a kid, which might be the cause - but which now are decidedly minority. Either way I'm left favouring feet and inches to metres and metric, knowing most of England's monarchs, and with certain traits and thoughts, unfashionable notions such as hard work, self-reliance and family. Also, added to that list, can go the commitment to free speech: unrestrained, unrestricted and universal, the basic right of all free individuals to say what they want, without fear or sanction, however hurtful, mean or downright stupid the words spoken are.

I recall being about eight and having a teacher at school - a fantastic "old school" teacher of the pre-Leftist tradition that mixed a cheerful kindness with actual learning, and was naturally nearing retirement - who was definitely a subscriber to this theory. Whereas other primary teachers, with few exceptions, got entangled in endless "he said she said" arguments - "Jimmy called me names", etc, etc - such claims were of no interest: "Don't tell tales" was the usual response if it was deemed a frivolous complaint, or "Tell him/her to grow up." And if upset was caused - or appeared to have been caused, for children can lie to get others into trouble, as much as naive Leftists may be shocked to hear such - the message was of resilience and self-empowerment: the much maligned, much marginalised, near extinct "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" was the order of the day. That short children's rhyme, now seen so negatively, was in fact an overwhelmingly positive message; it was a call to ignore the taunt, to refrain from physical retaliation, to be strong by remaining calm and good-natured, to be the better person and rise above it, stronger and happier. Had there been anything serious then of course there would have been action, as it was only a primary school, but as a consequence of this general belief in shrugging off comments there was no bullying in the class, as any potential verbal bully's efforts were made futile by resilience.

A war is being waged in the Government. That isn't new, in fact it isn't new for any government anywhere in history, but the latest front has seen new dividing lines cut through parties and the old factions as much as between them. On the one side stand what were described in yesterday's Times by Rachel Sylvester as the "Economist Conservatives" - as in The Economist newspaper, and counting among them the Chancellor George Osborne - who have come to a bizarre alliance with the Liberal Democrats in their desire to tax "wealth"; facing against them stand 'Country Life Conservatives', a group said to include David Cameron, who oppose such a move as an assault on conservative values such as home ownership. With the budget just two weeks away, the issue hard to compromise on, and Liberal Democrats demanding a Mansion Tax in exchange for abolishing the 50p tax rate, tensions are set to rise considerably.

On the one hand I can see much good from this: I've long supported the idea of shifting taxation to whatever collection method causes the least economic harm, recognising the psychological impact and how they differ, etc, and if the government - and the media - start to discuss the damaging effects of taxation and the concept of making changes to reduce that impact then that could be a very good thing. We successfully shifted taxation away from income to consumption in the 1980s, and although I'd rather shift taxes only in addition to hugely cutting the overall tax level across the board - does that make me a CityAM Conservative? - this is at least a start.

There is however a problem. I'm all for changing the tax code, moving the burden of tax to the areas they cause least harm in order to cut (ideally abolish) the taxes that cause the greatest harm, but along the route something has gone terribly wrong. Close contact with the Liberal Democrats has infected some Conservatives with the belief that "unearned wealth" exists, and that it should be taxed, which are both very unconservative stances and likely to alienate millions of voters.

Which politician of the last century, or longer, has been the most unfairly tarnished in the history books and public consciousness? On the Left you could argue Michael Foot, or Jim Callaghan, or even Jimmy Carter, who maybe don't entirely deserve all the stick they get; those of us on the Right can argue for Margaret Thatcher, who gets blamed for nearly everything even when it happened before she took office, and George W Bush, who was actually far smarter than he seemed. Those feeling brave and controversial may argue for Enoch Powell, that he was wrong on his career defining topic but very misrepresented.

Each of these can stake a claim to that title, the general perception of them being some distance from reality, yet the award - in my opinion anyway - has to go to Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican candidate for President trounced in the polls by Lyndon B Johnson. Goldwater, portrayed by Democrats as a racist, was anything but: he had ended racial segregation in his family department stores, in Phoenix schools, restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard, but he objected to the 1964 Civil Rights Act - arguing that it was unconstitutional in its regulation of private business choices - an argument easily lost in the campaign. "You cannot pass a law that will make me like you or you like me," Goldwater told the US. "That is something that can only happen in our hearts."

I was reminded of Goldwater recently by the outburst of Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, that Christians who want to be exempt from equality legislation are like Muslims trying to impose sharia on Britain. "You can’t say because we decide we’re different then we need a different set of laws...Why not then say sharia can be applied to different parts of the country? It doesn’t work."

With university applications down 9.9% on last year, certain institutions and departments struggling to recruit, the usual suspects of the Left are busy predicting doom and despair - plus ça change - with the country apparently going to hell in a handcart because the wicked Tories have forced students to pay for their own degrees with debt. Jenny McCartney in the Telegraph foretells a future "considerably less meritocratic", where only the rich will be able to afford "soft subjects" and where the less affluent will be scared off from studying Medicine by the debts - though how anyone can be bright enough to become a doctor but not understand the loan deal or size of a doctor's salary baffles me - and compares the situation to the abolition of grammar schools.

The future, it seems, is bleak, with the masses wistfully photoshopping themselves into fantasy graduation photos, imagining how much better their life would be if only they'd got that 2.2 in Post-Modern Dance Studies. Those that do, according to Labour, shackled by the debts, we can expect to see begging in the streets in their ever-gaudier coloured graduation gowns - the more obscure the institution, the weirder the colours - clutching the scrolls of their Peace Studies degrees, their square mortarboard hats as improvised begging bowls. The rhetoric is all very fatalistic, the destination seemingly very Dickensian. I'm not convinced.

Now, don't get me wrong, I feel a bit sorry for students and recent graduates; not hugely sorry, just a little bit, but not sorry that they have to pay fees for what they have studied. Rather, I feel sorry for them vaguely in the way I'd feel sympathy for someone mis-sold an investment or pension scheme, tricked into unnecessary roof repairs by a door-to-door conman, robbed by a boiler room scam, or had over by a cowboy tradesman, because that is the nearest to what they have been the victims of: sold a dream that wasn't real by the cowboy educationalists and left with the bill.

Of all the things that are truly conservative, the belief and aspiration to see a property owning democracy must be one of the most central and unifying. Indeed though Margaret Thatcher became the most prominent champion of home ownership - and is often wrongly credited with coining the term - the dream of a land in which each has that unique freedom, independence and sense of belonging that comes from holding the title deed to a corner of England's green and pleasant land goes back through Heath, Macmillan, Eden, Churchill, and beyond. Whether One Nation or libertarian, Tory or Whig, home ownership runs through the conservative alliance: a nation in which there are 3.4 million households in rented accommodation is not something that we can be content with, but as much as I want to encourage home ownership - and believe there is a small government role - the Coalition's plans fill me with a deep concern; what has been so far announced could amount to the worst policy yet created by the current Government.

Now although I have concerns about the plans, there is in the policy quite a major shift which I feel has gone largely unnoticed and is a positive development. Previous chatter from the Government regarding housing revolved around the argument that headline housing prices were too high, the Housing Minister Grant Shapps moderating the ideas of the House Price Crash website with talk of prices rising below inflation - a real terms fall - until they were more affordable. There was always three problems with this stance: firstly inflation in the construction industry is very significantly above the CPI/RPI official figures, reducing margins, forcing either prices higher or a reduction in development numbers as viability drops; secondly the fact that waiting for a slow devaluation would take a decade or longer if mortgage criteria were unchanged before housing became buyable with 20% deposits as common today, yet a rapid "crash" would trap millions in negative equity and cause another banking collapse; and thirdly, most seriously, that it is the size of the deposit - most influenced by the loan to value figure - that is the biggest roadblock for first time buyers, who are often paying more in rent than they would a mortgage, and that price instability causes fearful lenders to demand larger deposits as a buffer from negative equity caused losses. Current plans have moved the emphasis from the headline price - a favourite topic of the Daily Express - to the deposit, which being the problem facing millions is the best place to start; this should be welcomed.

A recurrent irritation when I was at school, an irritation shared by a few others, was the Headmaster of a school in the next town. For years the school had been well regarded as "best of the rest"; drawing middle class kids from a rural population, but not selective, it didn't match the grammars or private schools but was very respectable. It was a good school. Then, suddenly, it started surging up league tables, the Headmaster appearing on local media whenever possible to celebrate (gloat about?) results and urge the abolition of grammars. That's when he got irritating.

Years later however it has all become clear. Having a sister nearly a decade younger, I've seen what schools have done in those years of Labour misrule, and what "smart" (read: deceitful) Heads have done. All those kids getting 5 GCSEs graded A*-C, the measure most commonly used, were getting "equivalents"; tragically friends of my sister who went to this school, and millions of others, have been conned into studying an eclectic range of bizarre and worthless qualifications at the urging of their schools: Hair and Beauty, Tourism Management, and something called Personal Effectiveness, all apparently worth more than English, Maths, and Geography. And what is worse, knowing of these particular children vaguely from my sister, is that all were capable of so much more: they were normal, capable youngsters, from varied but middle class backgrounds, and to bump up statistics they've been deceived, set up for a career on minimum wage far beneath the pay of their parents. I may have been irritated by this school's Head, but these youngsters and their parents, and millions across the country, have every right to be an angry mob: they have been mis-sold their future.